New Rules

[Kiwon]

Do you think a RB using his head, and head only, to plow through a defender should continue to be allowed?

Short-sighted, touchy and feely pbmax, why do you hate Earl Campbell? So you'd call a penalty on him in the above play. Vin Scully, Jim Brown, and George Allen praise him but you'd penalize him. But those guys don't know anything about football, right?

What else would you have Earl Campbell do, write a note apologizing to Isiah Robertson?

How many carries did you have in the NFL? That would be zero, right?

Well, two guys that did carry the ball a few times, HOFers Emmitt Smith and Eric Dickerson, instantly condemned the new rule. You might remember Emmitt Smith, he broke more than a few Packer tackles by lowering his shoulders, not by asking "please".

[swede]

I don't see how a running back can play any other way. You lower your head at contact to employ your shoulder pads and get greater leverage.

I'm fine with the rule as long as they never ever use it.

[smuggler]

That was a really entertaining run by Campbell, but it's the football of the past. The game can't remain the same forever. C'est la vie.

[Joemailman]

Actually, it looks like that play may have been inside the tackle box, so it would not be subject to the rule. Additionally, it's a judgment call, with the officials having some discretion as to whether it was forcible enough to draw a penalty. It may be a bad rule, but I don't think it will be called as much as some people fear.

[Patler]

Don't players, both past and present, criticize every rule that changes how the play(ed)?
When have you ever heard a player say; "That's a great rule change. I should not have been allowed to do what I did"?

Defenders like the new rule, running backs not so much. Receivers liked all the changes limiting defenders, those on defense not so much. Rules come and rules go. It's not a big deal.

[hoosier]

Actually, it looks like that play may have been inside the tackle box, so it would not be subject to the rule. Additionally, it's a judgment call, with the officials having some discretion as to whether it was forcible enough to draw a penalty. It may be a bad rule, but I don't think it will be called as much as some people fear.

I think the potential big problem with this change is just that: it's going to be a judgment call, which possibly means no clear, generally accepted criteria for what is legal vs. illegal. So different crews call it in different ways, and game situation may factor into whether it is called or not (called in the first quarter but not late in the fourth with a team driving for a game winning td). I suppose you could say the same about other rules (offensive holding stands out) but we're used to living with that uncertainty. It is going to take some time to iron out the wrinkles and get accustomed to the subjective nature of the rule.

[pbmax]

[video=youOq9g]htubeF9y_KZwOq9g[/video]



Short-sighted, touchy and feely pbmax, why do you hate Earl Campbell? So you'd call a penalty on him in the above play. Vin Scully, Jim Brown, and George Allen praise him but you'd penalize him. But those guys don't know anything about football, right?

What else would you have Earl Campbell do, write a note apologizing to Isiah Robertson?

How many carries did you have in the NFL? That would be zero, right?

Well, two guys that did carry the ball a few times, HOFers Emmitt Smith and Eric Dickerson, instantly condemned the new rule. You might remember Emmitt Smith, he broke more than a few Packer tackles by lowering his shoulders, not by asking "please".

Stop your complaining. I asked you a simple question: Should that use of helmet only be allowed?

I have no problem with lowering shoulders (and the head that lowers with it unless you are Plastic Man), hips, bent knees and a forward lean. And I don't care if the helmet then makes contact with any part of the defender. Your example of Smith's use of shoulders and swede's concern below are legitimate.

But I do think that shot by Campbell is completely avoidable. The problem with Goodell's approach is exactly as Tagliabue describes it in the bounty case. A top down rule is tough enough to enforce when everyone is pulling in the same direction. Its worse when, before the rule hits the field there are half a dozen caveats to it.

It might not be possible to make a rule that is clear and easy to ref in the game. The issue of where the head is on contact is tough to sort out. But it would be a far easier thing to accomplish if the players and coaches were pulling with him. Working on techniques and practicing to avoid this would be far better than a new rule in this case.

A while back, Peter King wrote an article that the League was reviewing game tape from earlier decades and found far fewer incidents of the use of the helmet to either initiate contact, loosen the football or make a tackle. It habit and technique coaching that have changed that. And the Commish should be relying on that to reel it back in. No one needs to play like Chuck Cecil to make football tough.

As Jim Brown himself said, he never used his head to move a defender. He used his arms. As for Dickerson, he ran so upright, rare would be the instance that he made contact with his helmet first. Jeff Fisher said he won over Eddie George in fifteen minutes after George called him to complain about the rule. Do you really expect Smith and Dickerson are as well informed?

[pbmax]

That was a really entertaining run by Campbell, but it's the football of the past. The game can't remain the same forever. C'est la vie.

It wasn't always played like that either. Campbell's use of his head was effective, but coaches used to rail against putting your head down for any reason.

I played with a running back who had the opposite problem. He ran as hard as he could in the direction of the hole but he was so worried about contact he used the Czsonka FB two hands around the ball technique. In hindsight, I wonder if this made him worry more about contact because he would then run with his head down like a rhino charging a interloper.

If the hole stayed where he thought it was, he was golden. If it moved, he would drill the top of his helmet into the O lineman's back. Maybe if he had one arm free for protection he would have looked up.

[hoosier]

One silver lining in this rule is that the Packers as they are currently configured are likely to benefit more than the suffer from it.

[Patler]

It wasn't always played like that either. Campbell's use of his head was effective, but coaches used to rail against putting your head down for any reason.

You've got that right.

Other techniques have changed as well. When Perry got a fine for his hit on Luck, coaches and players both called it a textbook tackle, with his head up and into the ball carrier's chest. That is from a newer textbook, because years and years ago the technique was to put your head to the side and drive your shoulder into the ball carrier.

[sharpe1027]

But it would be a far easier thing to accomplish if the players and coaches were pulling with him. Working on techniques and practicing to avoid this would be far better than a new rule in this case.

A while back, Peter King wrote an article that the League was reviewing game tape from earlier decades and found far fewer incidents of the use of the helmet to either initiate contact, loosen the football or make a tackle. It habit and technique coaching that have changed that. And the Commish should be relying on that to reel it back in. No one needs to play like Chuck Cecil to make football tough.

Great idea, but I have my doubts as to whether or not you can get there without a rule change. History has shown that teams look for any advantage they can get, sometimes even when it is clearly against the rules. Asking teams to "play ball" with a voluntary change in coaching techniques and you might get them to agree in theory, but coaches and players will probably keep doing it if they think it makes the difference between a win and a loss (and several million dollars in their personal bank accounts).

[smuggler]

All penalties are judgment calls, though. Holding is a judgment call. You can't review a hold.

[Kiwon]

Jeff Fisher said he won over Eddie George in fifteen minutes after George called him to complain about the rule. Do you really expect Smith and Dickerson are as well informed?

Let's hear Eddie George speak for himself. So Emmitt Smith, Eric Dickerson, Matt Forte, and Eddie George among others responded negatively to the rule? Why? Instead of whiny rationalizations why don't you try to see it from their perspective? You think they're stupid? You believe these professional RBs are not "well informed"? What arrogance! Yeah, I think these men, who spent thousands of hours practicing their craft, are very well-informed.

Here's the rule summarized, “The new rule will draw a 15-yard penalty if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.”

Yeah, lots of big words in there. Sportscasters can say it in 10 seconds but it takes 15 minutes to explain it to a professional running back.

Besides that, my original post that offended your delicate sensibilities focused on THE OWNERS. Why did the owners vote 31-1 on the rule change? Without consulting Huff-Po's Sports section, could you enlighten us with speculation on their MOTIVATION or is that discussion off-limits?

PB, how do you sleep at night knowing that the owners haven't passed a "Gus Frerotte" rule? Randomly, professional football players could injure themselves by headbutting padded walls. It's been almost 16 years. Someone could have died. Don't you care? Is life that cheap to you? Wouldn't you feel better if there was a rule against it?

[pbmax]

Let's hear Eddie George speak for himself. So Emmitt Smith, Eric Dickerson, Matt Forte, and Eddie George among others responded negatively to the rule? Why? Instead of whiny rationalizations why don't you try to see it from their perspective? You think they're stupid? You believe these professional RBs are not "well informed"? What arrogance! Yeah, I think these men, who spent thousands of hours practicing their craft, are very well-informed.

Here's the rule summarized, “The new rule will draw a 15-yard penalty if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.”

Yeah, lots of big words in there. Sportscasters can say it in 10 seconds but it takes 15 minutes to explain it to a professional running back.

Besides that, my original post that offended your delicate sensibilities focused on THE OWNERS. Why did the owners vote 31-1 on the rule change? Without consulting Huff-Po's Sports section, could you enlighten us with speculation on their MOTIVATION or is that discussion off-limits?

PB, how do you sleep at night knowing that the owners haven't passed a "Gus Frerotte" rule? Randomly, professional football players could injure themselves by headbutting padded walls. It's been almost 16 years. Someone could have died. Don't you care? Is life that cheap to you? Wouldn't you feel better if there was a rule against it?

I would love to hear Eddie George speak for himself. I half expect Fisher to have overplayed his selling job.

The infield fly rule is even simpler to read but people mess it up all the time. Why do you assume it is reading difficulty causing confusion Kiwon? Perhaps because you secretly assume their CTE is causing reading comprehension difficulty?

You could have gone on the the companion hobby horse that not only are liberals whiny but the press is out to get you. Maybe Dickerson, Smith and Forte have been listening to media coverage rather than reading the text of the rule. Each objection I have read relates to having to lower the head in order to be ready to absorb, initiate or avoid contact. Now, the League could easily prove me wrong, but the way I read the rule that is not prohibited (even outside the tackle box) unless the runner then engages the blocker forcibly with the crown of the lowered head. How will they tell the difference? I have no earthly idea. Maybe they will show the refs a video of Perry hitting Luck in his chest with his facemask as the "good" kind of helmet contact, unless you are hitting a defenseless QB/WR.

As for Frerotte, I think the cement wall did a good job of policing itself and see no reason for the League to intervene. Self preservation in this case has proven to be enough motivation. Beside, my concern is mainly repeated, sub-concussive trauma that goes unnoticed and untreated as the player continues to play. Ol' Gus gave himself the full concussion so he got plenty of attention.

And your original post did not offend me at all. This rule was enacted precisely because of the lawsuit. I would hope Goodell would be smart enough to find a way forward to protect against the suit (or future suits) without making grandstanding gestures such as this. He does not seem to be working from data or addressing the known worst problems first. He seems to be ruling by highlights.